Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 2-4, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 7-15, 19-22, 24-39, 43-47, 51-54, 56, 60 and 62-65 under Kawai et al. (US Patent No. 10538516) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shomozono et al. (US Patent No. 20050171358).
Shomozono teaches compositions comprising compounds which reads to the limitations of claimed invention.
Applicant has canceled claims 7-8, 15-16, 25-26, 39-40 and 49-50. Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-22, 24, 27-38, 41-48, 51-54 and 56-67 is pending. Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-22, 24, 27-38, 41-48, 51-54 and 56-67 are now evaluated on its merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 52, the structures having a phenyl as R1 is rendered indefinite as claim 52 depends from claim 1 which within its limitations does not include a phenyl. Of particular compounds
PNG
media_image1.png
77
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image2.png
89
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
88
229
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Ultimately, the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-22, 24, 27-38, 41-48 and 51-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shomozono et al. (US Patent No. 20050171358).
Regarding claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-22, 24, 27-38, 41-48 and 51-53, Shomozono teaches a method for preventing plant diseases comprising substituted isoxazole alkylamine derivatives of formula 1
PNG
media_image4.png
93
198
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and a pharmaceutical acceptable carrier (relevant to claims 11, 29 and 53) (para. 0012 and 0421). Of formula 1 Shomozono teaches R1 and R2 as H or a lower alkyl group (relevant to claims 9-10 and 27-29) (para. 0014), Y1 and Y2 as a cycloalkyl, phenyl, heteroaryl or aliphatic hetero ring which may be substituted (para. 0024, 0026). Shomozono additionally teaches formula 3
PNG
media_image5.png
89
164
media_image5.png
Greyscale
with embodiments
PNG
media_image6.png
110
239
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(relevant to claims 13-14, 37-38 and 51) (para. 0475),
PNG
media_image7.png
133
269
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(relevant to claims 3-4, 24 and 36) (para. 0824),
PNG
media_image8.png
128
291
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(relevant to claims 17-18 and 41-42) (para. 0884),
PNG
media_image9.png
122
303
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(relevant to claims 19 and 43), Y1 as
PNG
media_image10.png
94
130
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(relevant to claims 12 and 30-31) (compound 99),
PNG
media_image11.png
131
287
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(relevant to claims 32-33) (para. 0589),
PNG
media_image12.png
114
297
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(para. 1015), Y1 as
PNG
media_image13.png
94
75
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(relevant to claims 34- 35) (compound 98), Y2 as
PNG
media_image14.png
76
105
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(relevant to claim 44) (compound 188). The embodiments of Shomozono reads to the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-6, 20-22 and 45-48.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to have developed compounds
PNG
media_image15.png
70
214
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image16.png
99
232
media_image16.png
Greyscale
One would have been motivated to do so from the teachings of Shomozono of structure
PNG
media_image5.png
89
164
media_image5.png
Greyscale
with all its above embodiments. There is a reasonable expectation of developing compounds
PNG
media_image17.png
109
334
media_image17.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image16.png
99
232
media_image16.png
Greyscale
from the teachings of Shomozono.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 54 and 56-67 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL O'DONNEL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0777. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at 571-270-5239. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MIKHAIL O'DONNEL. ROBINSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1627
/MIKHAIL O'DONNEL ROBINSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1627
/SARAH PIHONAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627